Greg F

And your point is? That it has warmed since 1950? Nobody is really debating that it has warmed. The debate is over why. Lets look at the entire surface record. Notice the increase before 1950 from 1910 to 1945? This is before there was any significant increase in CO2. Perhaps you could comment on what caused that warming. Or perhaps the whole climate change thing is just an article of faith with you. Your religion so to speak. Instead of responding to my original point you chose to engage in misdirection with that silly little graph. The models, which is the only way we can understand a system as complex as the climate, have failed. All the dooms day scenarios, all the chicken little proclamations that were all going to die if we don't do something, all of them are based on the models.

There ... fixed if for you. You could insert numerous other examples of beliefs in history of science that are now known to be wrong. Science advances when theory matches reality. When reality deviates from theory then it is time to question the validity of the theory. Anything else would be ... well .... unscientific.

Some things just don't show up in the statistics. I have been a Bills and general football fan since the early 60's and have watched a lot of football. One thing about Fred that never ceases to amaze me is his blocking ability. My memory may be failing me but there have been very few running backs, IMO, that were or are as good at blocking. That has to count for something.

Michael Crichton on religion: Read the whole thing.

There have already been quite a few good responses. I will just add that context is important. A word can be offensive in one context but not in another. You are assuming that those groups that claim to represent Native Americans do in fact represent them. The National Congress of American Indians have been arguing for decades that the name is offensive. This is at odds with the Annenberg survey. In my experience more often than not when an organization takes a position on an issue that position is the view of those in control of the organization. It is not necessarily representative of the members views. In effect they are using the membership to add credibility to what is their personal position on the issue.

Someone should inform the Red Mesa Redskins that their mascot is racist. Carry on.

Stephanie Mateczun isn't a he.

Well maybe ... reaction time also slows down with age.

I agree a more recent survey would be desirable and I don't think the results would change dramatically. Considering the survey was a "broader political survey" I believe there is less chance people self-identified as Native American to push an agenda. The results may be different but would the differences be statistically significant? Don't know. The sample size isn't the only problem with that survey (there are 562 Federally recognized native governments). The selection of the respondents ("Most of the American Indian surveys were collected at local pow-wows") is clearly not a random sample. One only has to go to a town meeting to realize these type of meetings are not attended by a representative sample of the local community. The reservation near me has an annual pow-wow that is open to the public so self-identification would still be a problem there. The survey questions are poorly constructed. For example the first statement requesting a yes or no: The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol. This is like asking 'is 1 or 2 an even number'? I would have to honestly answer yes as the Redskins name is clearly racial. That doesn't mean it's also racist. This first question bias's the rest of the survey. Here is another interesting find. Their sports teams are the Red Mesa Redskins.

The estate less what Mary gets is taxed at 40% which is due 9 months from the date of death. Yes I know that. As I recall Ralph said (paraphrasing) 'that Mary would be very comfortable'. I suspect that the majority of the estate will go to Ralph's daughters Christy and Edith. Their portion is not exempt. There is also a roughly $5 million exemption which is insignificant considering the size of the estate. Ralph was not listed in the Forbes 400 of the richest Americans with the lowest estate value on the list of $1.3 billion. It is therefore a pretty good assumption that the vast majority of Ralph's estate value is tied up in the team and is less than $1.3 billion. For the sake of argument lets assume the estate is worth $1.2 billion (the team $1 billion of that) and Mary gets 25% ($300 million). That means the estate will have to come up with $360 million to pay the Federal estate tax. Cashing in the non team part of the estate still isn't enough to pay the tax. A trust avoids probate and therefore having to go through a court. There are legal fee's associated with probate which is usually a percentage of the estate. He would have had to put the team in a irrevocable trust to avoid the estate tax which would likely be a violation of NFL rules. To the best of our knowledge the estate was put into a trust at Ralph's death, you cannot do that with a irrevocable trust.

The Federal estate tax of 40% is due 9 months after the death of the owner.

The Annenberg Survey (which I posted previously) only found 9% of Native Americans found the Redskins name offensive, 90% didn't find the name offensive, and 1% didn't answer. So apparently National Congress of American Indians claims to represent Native Americans on this issue seems problematic to me.

Exactly correct DC Tom. It is interesting how off the deep end some people will go when facts that don't coincide with their world view is brought to their attention. Here is a survey the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania did:

Until they broadcast in 3D and I can see the whole field it's no contest.

The registered trademark in question was issued in 1967.

Then Baxter Holmes is an ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't see my post on the previous page. Unlike a ignorant Boston Celtics beat writer for The Boston Globe, Goddard is an Indian language scholar at the Smithsonian Institution. A small quote from Goddard's paper: I know this may come as a surprise to those who get their history lessons from sports writers that the first documented use of the term "redskins" comes from native Americans. In fact Goddard opens up the paper by dispelling the scalp myth:

I will just leave this here. And for those interested Goddard's published paper is here (PDF).

He should change the name to the Washington Gangsters in honor of the politicians and bureaucrats. This should be followed by signing Reggie Bush so when the team goes 2 and 14 they can just blame Boosh!

Well they do have a team named the Yankees, which is often a derogatory term used by southerners to refer to people from the north. Context matters.

If Jimmy Graham gets classified as a wide receiver the Saints will have to trim $5.3 million from the roster to keep him. Will be interesting to see how that works out.

A court is not a democracy. The new owner can try to make the payment but the the County, ECSC, or the State are under no obligation to accept the payment. In fact the lease agreement specifically states they will first seek a "decree of specific performance or an injunction".

Your question was addressed on page 3 by CodeMonkey: In relation to the $400 million the contract states: The new owners could argue that the $400 million is not a realistic estimate of the damages and ask for an adjustment.

Howdy ICanSleepWhenI'mDead, Don't disagree. The reason I was focused on an order of specific performance was the news article that was claiming that the Bills could not move due to a 'specific performance clause'. I think "prohibitory injunction" would be the first step in the legal process. Seeking an "order of specific performance" would be the end game. I think the burden of proof would be on the county to show irreparable harm which I believe it is a very high bar to get over. Off the top of my head on page 6 "(aa) Untenantable Condition". Basically don't let the building fall apart. NP ... got to run myself in a bit.

I am reluctant to take at face value anything that passes through the brain of a journalist. And i speak from experience. What Ganis actually said in context may be quite different than what is conveyed in the article. An order of specific performance can only be issued by a court. Item ii that you cite is exactly the reasoning a court would use to issue a order of specific performance. The problem is a court would first have to determine if item ii is indeed accurate and true which no court has done yet. That is why there are contingencies in the contract such as: IOW, Only a court can issue an injuction or order of specific performance and the above is acknowledging that fact. What the above says if the court doesn't grant an injunction or order of specific performance then the $400 million payment kicks in.